What if humans went away?

In response to article: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005052.html
based on the article: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225731.100

There is a very deep point in that image that I think was missed by all but one commenter who mentioned it in passing. The image is based on an assumption, and that assumption is a most likely a lie.

We have already exceeded the natural system limits for CO2 alone. If we maintain the current CO2 production, the Oceans will all die due to acidification.

We have already reached a tipping point, where previous (lasting several warming periods) permafrosts are melting. One dramatic example of this is swamp areas in Siberia that are melting, and will (unless humanity takes aggressive action to prevent this) melt and release massive amounts of methane and CO2 that have been produced for thousands of years. These greenhouse gases are stored in ice, and the short term release is a tipping point that starts other tipping points in a domino-like chain reaction.

Other examples of things that are happening *right now* that will continue if we are here or not: ocean dead zones are growing, desertification of the Earth to hit 33%-50% based on glacial disappearance and climate change (50% based on minor greenhouse effect), sea level rise of 200 feet (if CO2 in atmosphere hits 300 ppm, all of the ice melts. We are currently 382ppm and rising logarithmically), and many more (species loss, water table loss, etc).

If we walk away from the Earth right now, the Earth as a living system may actually die. The same is also true of returning to pre-industrial levels of technology.

Based on my study of the environmental living systems, I claim that the image featured in the article is completely false.

Regarding species loss as natural: yes species die, but the crucial functions they provide are still necessary. If other species provide that same function, they often increase to fill the void in the niche. If all species capable of a crucial function die, what happens next?

Another falsehood was thinking that Genetically Engineered organisms simply disappear from the biosphere. This is an outright lie, and we don't even need massive studies to proove it. GE crops infect other crops. See Monsanto in Canada, Mexico and GE Corn, the GE Grass on the loose in Oregon that doesn't require germination, etc.

Lastly, there is another possibility for complete and utter destruction of all life on Earth that I call "green goo" instead of "grey goo". There is Department of Energy funding for genetic engineering (an outright competition) to turn cellulose into ethanol. The organism is supposed to be fast breeding, but containment doesn't appear to be an issue. I have friends at labs where people are competing for this funding prize. What would it mean if any competing lab "leaked" GE organisms (bacteria or virii) onto their cotton clothing? The potential death of all plant life. Green goo - the world's plants turning to ethanol.

I do agree with Alex Steffen, and I'm working on creating a sustainable civilization. Not a qualitatively "slightly better but still horrible" version but a truly sustainable future that can be proven as sustainable.

Personal greenhouse gas (CO2) calculations

Greenhouse gases are a topic of much discussion, and many people are left at the end wondering, "What can I do?" or "How bad am I doing?" To answer the second question here are a bunch of personal calculators that will estimate your emissions. I included my own data for comparison, and comments on how the figures may be skewed. Scattered through many of the calculators was tips and suggestions on what you can do, in some cases updating emissions to what they would be if you adopt the changes.

No site I found seemed interested in some of the most critical CO2 data: how much meat you eat (1 pound of beef uses more water than not bathing for 6 months), how far your food traveled (average distance 1900 miles), how many pounds of trash you produce (2-4 pounds per month). Some calculators were interested in how much you recycle (I'm at 80-90% recycled/reused) but none of them asked how much trash was produced. No one asked how many trees per yard or per person were planted, nor the number of indoor house plants used to offset CO2. No site claimed to include other greenhouse gases like Nitrous Oxide or Methane.

reference.aol.com 3697 pounds per year.
My utility bills are split 2 ways. This calculator adds CO2 for each person in a family, instead of dividing the resources among people. We share refrigerator use, and that is the best way to cut down on power consumption. Using household numbers for utilities, 6156 pounds. I think their explanation is simple, but they don't make it clear that they provide per household data, instead of per capita data. Public transportation wasn't included.

ClimateCrisis 300 pounds per month(?)
The biggest flaw is they don't say what they measure. Looking at the calculation page, they compared usage based on month. Public transportation wasn't included. Electricity production based on region was used, so they adjust figures based on how my region gets its power. (hydroelectric, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind/solar in that order.)

GreenHouseImpact
This site doesn't offer a complete calculator, but talks about how to calculate facts and figures. Also has some great minor suggestions.

ConservationFund .82 tons per year=1640 pounds (see below)
I couldn't input my data. I use a lot less trash than the average person, I know the amount, it only allows me to use typical data for most fields. They wanted to charge me $5 to pay $3.28 to plant a single tree to offset my usage. I know the figure they gave is wrong, I couldn't input my data. So I need 2 trees.

Nef.org.uk 932 pounds per year
They actually show the conversion data, which is really nice. They do use British measurement (BTU, etc) mixed with the metric system (Kg) so a bit of conversion was needed. Google calculator does that quite well.

EPA.gov 4,972 pounds per year
Another site where you need to input your portion of the bills to get your footprint. They excluded public transportation, gave me a discount for my recycling but didn't ask what my actual trash was. (1 typical grocery bag per month not recycled, 4-5 bags recycled) This estimate is higher than the other by about the weird trash penalty. They suggest recycling more, but didn't suggest having less trash to begin with.

Misc EPA Calculators
A lot of miscellaneous calculators here sorted by scope (home, individual, business), focus (travel, car, solid waste, etc) and calculators from other countries. I think this is a great resource for people who want to make their own calculations or software.

I'm still composing a list of what settings and fields should be in these calculators in case someone wants to write a (hopefully) much better one.

(anti) Global Warming Petition - parry, riposte

Global Warming Petition

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Parry
First off, you can have a bachelor's in poetry and be able to sign this petition. It is marketed as a petition of scientists, but it is really a petition of college graduates. Considering that most college graduates can't calculate the price of an "$18 pair of pants, 20% off" ($14.40) this group of "scientists" doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. I'm going to contact OISM.org and ask them about this. I'd visit in person since I live in Portland, Oregon but OISM is in Cave Junction, the middle of nowhere. (Actually, it is the junction of two highways, Redwood Hwy and Caves Hwy near natural caves. It is further than the middle of nowhere.)

On to the petition wording itself. I will nitpick only once here, the Kyoto Protocol wasn't written entirely in Kyoto 1997. The official history from the horse's mouth, shows the document compiled in Bonn, Geneva and Kyoto then adopted at the end of the year in Kyoto December, 1997. Signatures began in 1998.

"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, ..." So it appears they concede the concept of greenhouse gases, and then claim that limiting them will harm the environment. Human production of greenhouse gases, that cause the greenhouse effect, would harm the environment how? Plants need human smog, fire extinguishers and coolants to be released into the environment? Obviously no plants existed prior to the year 1900, because without human greenhouse gases they were harmed.

"...hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." The first phrase might be plausible, but historic evidence indicates otherwise. When Robert Heinlein was asked to speak about the social effects of NASA, his researchers, wife and himself traced NASA as the initial research for miniaturizing electronics, life support systems used in hospitals, lasers, national defense systems, nutrition research and much more. In my understanding of research and development, funding new ideas and products leads to more new ideas and products. There are two main ways industry can cut down on emissions. The first is to close up shop and go home, stop making products. The second is researching new ways of making the same things. I'm simplifying the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, and a commodity based market for emissions would make it so the worst polluters needed to pay more. (If the amount is too low, the low prices encourage pollution.) Doing so would attach a financial value on decreasing emissions. A more fundamental understanding like the one Dupont adopted would increase profits. Their annual goal is produce 10% more using 10% less, every year. They achieve this by increasing efficiency. Dupont realized they purchased the chemicals that left their smokestacks, and by decreasing waste, they increased profits. So far it has worked very well and they have met their goals. (Exhaustive facts and figures anyone?) If research and human ingenuity are exhausted, then cutting back emissions by decreasing production may be the only option, but I'm more of a pragmatic optimist when it comes to increasing efficiency of very wasteful processes developed in the late 1800s through 1950s. (I looked up recipes for cement, etc. We already have the cost effective formulas to drastically cut greenhouse gases, we just aren't using them.)

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." I do need to agree with the statement in its entirety, based on the key words "convincing scientific evidence" and "catastrophic". I think misspelling the word "gases" sort of detracts from the impact of their statement. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gases do increase temperature, see below for my riposte. Personally, I haven't seen convincing scientific evidence that a huge asteroid hitting the Earth would cause catastrophic heating or damage to the Earth or its climate. The math I saw for an NSA competition estimate the effects of a huge asteroid hitting the Earth said that most of the heat would dissipate into space, and the impact would be negligible. If the ice melts and/or becomes clouds, evidence would support a runaway positive feedback loop. That evidence is not convincingly catastrophic. Short version: they avoided the issue completely by using extreme language.

"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." This is partially true. Plants favor higher CO2 density (Advanced Life Support - NASA page 40) of 0.120kPa (1,200ppm) compared to Earth nominal 300-400ppm (NASA says 350-400ppm in the document based on CO2 levels in the past 50 years, but historic records indicate much lower quantities were present in the past.) The fact that plants (which use CO2 for photosynthesis) can survive with more CO2 is not the question, or the issue. The issue is: do greenhouse gases cause global warming? Is global warming a "bad thing"?

Riposte
They avoided the issue almost entirely, but is this a claim that greenhouse gases do not convert light into infrared radiation which is received in the lower atmosphere as heat? That would require changing a few chemistry books, and proving this is bad has little to nothing in common with observed wind and climate patterns. Global warming (aka tropospheric heating effect) is affected by changes in the atmosphere as infrared and UV light interacts with particles and molecules as they react. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect along with "Living in the Environment" 13th Edition G. Tyler Miller, Jr page 448.

For reference, the majority of greenhouse gases emitted from human activity are:
Carbon Dioxide, 50-120 years in the atmosphere, relative warming to CO2: 1
Methane, 12-18 years, 23 x CO2
Nitrous Oxide, 114-120 years, 296x CO2
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 11-20 years (65-110 year in stratosphere) 900-8300 x CO2
Hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 9-390 years, 470-2000 x CO2
Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), 15-390 years, 130-12700 x CO2
Halons, 65 years, 5500 x CO2
Carbon tetrachloride, 42 years, 1400 x CO2
(I'd be suspicious of any gas with chloro or fluoro in its name.)
Source: "Living in the Environment" 13th Edition G. Tyler Miller, Jr page 448.
Betting that greenhouse gases don't warm the Earth is a long term bet. We are betting that for the next 20-400 years that the gases we release today won't cause any significant or harmful environmental change. Nitrous Oxide is created any time atmospheric temperature is over 400 degrees F. Any form of combustion or strong heating, even electric heaters or burning hydrogen, releases greenhouse gases.

"Recent measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa observatory show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climatic Change, 68, 269, 2005)" That is a huge observation! The highest recorded CO2 level before the current era was approximately 300ppm. We are 25% over that amount, and 75% over the previous range of 200ppm-300ppm (variance of 100ppm, currently 75ppm over previous maximum.)

We know that CO2 reacts with light from the Sun to release heat and increase temperature. We know that the concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' are increasing in concentrations in the atmosphere. We know that the Earth is increasing in temperature, 0.5 Celsius since 1960. (Science 308, 1431, 2005)

What is the big stretch? The fact the oceans have not risen makes sense, since melting of floating ice doesn't increase water level. Try it in a cup of water. Now add an ice cube, did the water increase? When the ice cube melts, does the water level change? Now imagine adding an ice cube 3km tall and larger than the state of Texas. Additionally, it is currently below sea level and sitting on mud, so ocean water may break it up and cause it to be free floating once the open ocean connects with it.

The only bit of science necessary to know that global warming is happening is a ruler. Go measure the ice. Greenland is melting. North pole is melting. South pole is melting. Yes, increased rainfall has (slightly) increased the ice pack in some areas, but in many more the ice pack is retreating. The retreating ice pack far outweighs the extra snowfall.

A ruler measuring ice says the Earth is melting ice. What effect can that melting ice have? Order of magnitude estimates calculate that a single ice shelf, WAIS, would raise sea levels approximately 3-6 meters, or 10-20 feet. If all ice currently on land melted and flowed into the ocean, the sea level (order of magnitude estimate) would rise by 50 meters. That is approximately 164 feet. Maybe some of those 'scientists' should answer two questions: How much ice is there on land? Would human life, industry and the environment be negatively impacted if that ice was in the ocean?